Room 237 is a 2012 documentary profiling its oddball characters’ various crackpot theories about Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, including one who thinks Kubrick’s face appears in the clouds in the credits of the movie, and another who thinks the film is Kubrick’s confession that he helped fake the moon landing, based on incontrovertible evidence such as “Room 237” being an anagram for “Moon Room” and that the boy’s sweater has Apollo 11 on it.

Ah, so idiotic. Of course I did. There’s nothing to like. It’s just dumb. I mean [the filmmaker] obviously waited until Kubrick died. This happened to him in many cases, also this whole story about him doing a fake moon landing. This was only possible after he was dead. People come like worms; they creep out and take advantage of a guy who can’t sue from the grave. At any rate, I don’t worry about things like that.

I’m trying hard not to channel my inner Nelson from The Simpsons right now. I don’t know if I’d say Room 237 was “taking advantage” of Kubrick, but I definitely agree about it being idiotic. It struck me as being part of this current trend in criticism where people can’t seem to appreciate art without ascribing some wild, overwrought “theory” about it. Like people have to see every film or television show they like as an elaborate long con by some quasi-omnipotent creator (see: half of everything written about True Detective this year). Aside from it being obnoxious to hear people build a case that something you like is actually an elaborate metaphor for something else, it strikes me as being part of that same quasi-religious conspiracy theorist mentality, where it’s easier for some people to believe that there’s some nefarious group pulling strings and controlling everything than it is to believe how much of reality is ruled by chaos and happy accidents. To me, the happy accidents are the fun part.

Then again, what do I know? I’m just a guy posting that specific part of this interview that happens to dovetail with my own point of view. All while ignoring the part of the interview where Harlan says his favorite Kubrick film is… ulp… Eyes Wide Shut.

So much awful to choose from but I honestly thought the guy whose theory relied on interpreting a desktop in-box as the hotel manager’s erection was so fucking nuts he should be sealed in a padded room for eternity.

Vince, didn’t you once do a write up of the Shining that basically said “The point is that the hotel is haunted.”?

I think that pretty much sums up my feelings about interpreting the film. Kubrick and his movies were all about creating this subjective experience that really puts you in a surreal space. To cherry pick it for references to the Holocaust or Native American Genocide is to miss the point. It’s a simple story, executed in a masterfully complex and compelling way.

He seems to have missed the point of Room 237, which was not to suggest that all of the theories are equally valid or even sane, but rather to explore the fact that the film has spawned so many interpretations. It’s supposed to be fun at times and interesting at others. You’re supposed to laugh at the notion that the Tang on the shelf is evidence that Kubrick felt guilty about supposedly faking the Moon landing. You’re supposed to look at other theories along the lines of “I don’t buy it, but that’s a fun way to look at it.” It gives fans of the film a few more lenses to watch the film through.

What exactly would Kubrick have sued over? People having a wild range of interpretations of his film? That’s been the case since The Shining came out, and was likely what he wanted in the first place, or else he would have made the film more straightforward.

Yeah, I suspect Room 237 is less about “The Shining” and more about mankind’s marvelous ability to create meaning, construct narratives, and make sense of the world around him in clever ways. The film should be viewed as an extended, fun, examination of constructing elaborate arguments, then seeing how far you can take them before logic and reason starts to bend.

Hearing it compared to “conspiracy theories” is kind of silly, though. People don’t seem to understand that these sorts of elaborate interpretations, especially in film and literature, are mostly just fun, cultural, and philosophical puzzle work. Such readings can provide new ways of looking at art, the world, and ourselves, but they should never be taken all that seriously in the end as they always suggest the possibility that you can throw of one interpretation and adopt another as easily as you change clothes.

Actually Vince, I have to say that Eyes Wide Shut is tremendous film. I still wish that Kubrick ended it just before Kidman’s final line (just her smiling enigmatically before fading out would have been perfection), but otherwise it’s Kubrick in all his glory. Amazingly photographed (some of the most stunning work with color of his career), beautifully acted and immensely rewatchable.
And that whole sequence at the mansion sex party is easily one of the trippiest set pieces Kubrick has ever done. So, I don’t know that his producer is that off with siting it as his favorite Kubrick film.

Huh. Like Kevin, I think Harlan missed the point. Making a movie about one kooky theory would be annoying, sure. But for me, including a bunch of contradictory theories about the same movie made it obvious that all of those people were crazy, but crazy in a way inspired by Kubrick’s genius (and Kubrick’s reputation for genius). I spent a lot of time after thinking about art and pareidolia ([en.wikipedia.org]). I really enjoyed it.

I think I agree with the people posting that the idiocy of the theories was the point, I just don’t find listening to nonsense to be very good way to spend 90 minutes. It was entertaining enough for the first half hour, but when the second half hour just offered more of the same, I turned it off. Couldn’t finish. I have no clue how it generated as much positive buzz as it did.

A) Room 237 was awful.
2) I whole heartedly agree about the theorizing everything. True Detective is a good show but the constant barrage of fan theories take away from it.
D) Eyes Wide Shut is my second favourite Kubrick film. It’s actually better than most people think/say.

My top 2 favorite films of all time are Dr. Strangelove and A Clockwork Orange, so I’m a big Kubrick fan, but I must admit that I was a little disappointed with Eyes Wide Shut and was kind of sorry that it was his final effort. Although, upon seeing it again a few times, I think that it was more the performances of Cruise and Kidman and…their…slow…talking…every…single…word…of…dialogue…that really irritated me. Then again, that’s on Kubrick as the director.

I haven’t seen the movie, but literary and film criticism has been doing this sort of thing for ages. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it, provided no one’s arguing that any one interpretation is the one true interpretation. Honestly, if you can support your interpretation with evidence from the film, that’s all that matters. What Kubrick intended or didn’t intend it to mean is ultimately irrelevant. The film the Shining has meaning all its own as a cultural artifact and, as such, I think it’s fair game for these sorts of readings.

For example, Kubrick might not have purposely placed all the native american imagery in the film. But, regardless, there is native american imagery in the film. And given the cultural history of native Americans in this country, it’s not a stretch to read that imagery in the film according to America’s history with Native Americans. Whether Kubrick intended that is ultimately irrelevant to the fact that it is, nonetheless, being read in that way by many people. That’s how culture, art, and meaning work. Once the art object leaves the hands of the creator and is viewed from different cultural contexts, it usually takes on meaning all its own. It’s why there are literally thousands of readings of “Hamlet,” many of which might disagree with eachother, yet be equally valid as arguments.

I always thought death of the author was a bit disingenuous. It is, far too often, used as an excuse for crap, half realized theories rather than complex and supported intepretations. There is also something troubling about holding these two beliefs in conjunction: everything is important in art because everything is chosen by the creator, and the creator’s reason for choosing is ultimately irrelevant.

I also dismiss the attempt that is often made that goes something like this: the artist’s intent is unknown, so all interpretations are equally valid. It’s a lot like saying that the truth of a crime cannot be discovered without a confession. For The Truth, capital T and all, that is arguably the case, but that doesn’t mean that all scenarios are equally likely. There is, after all, evidence left behind.

And to clarify, I don’t disagree with anything you’ve written. Those ideas, when applied sincerely, feel inescapably accurate. It is more when the observation that people make their own interpretations leads to the defense of poor interpreters that I bristle. Dr. Strangelove contains a scene of a man riding a bomb, seemingly happily, to his demise, and the eventual demise of others. The full title of the work suggests love for not that specific bomb, but the one that follows suit. One could interpret that quite literally, and, no doubt, that will be the meaning of that work for some viewers. That meaning is valid in that it is the meaning they experience, but I would still argue that they didn’t really find that meaning within the film as much as they did without. That it is not a critical (and, if my pretension allows: valid) interpretation, even if that person’s experience is undeniable.

tl;dr: We have murdered both context and emphasis for personal ownership.

Phrasing – what you are missing with your analogy is incongruous. Film is art – like a painting or a poem (rather more a combination of the two). interpretations of it are part of the business. Criminal jurisprudence on the other hand is supposed to be without art – pure logic and reason – we come up with the most logical system to be right most of the time, in order to arrange society in a manner that we can all live in. It’s basically the romantic and classic divide. In one we seek emotive reaction/ meaning, in the other we seek proof.

Do people really think pointing to the part of analogies–things that are like, but not that same as, the thing they are representing–that don’t fit is really that compelling? I mean, I guess it is a pretty bad analogy, in that it’s an analogy, but I think you also know better. I also think I addressed the idea of multiple interpretations, valid and otherwise. I’m not going to tell you you didn’t feel something. I might tell you that that feeling came more from yourself than the work. That won’t be a condemnation, it will be a clarification of the discussion we’re having.

AB, that first bit sounds harsher than I intended (unless you don’t think so, in which case it doesn’t), but I truly am not sure what your point is. I would argue that seeking meaning and proof are not dichotomous. I would expect one who presents meaning in a work to also provide their reasons; their proof. I think emotion is a whole other, intensely personal beast. I don’t think we need to choose on or the other, we just need not confuse them.

I thought most of the theories were so absurd it was laughable (he skier in the poster is the Minotaur!) but I have to admit I never noticed things like the window in the internal office or the disappearing chair before seeing Room 237. Now I can’t decide if it’s because “the hotel is haunted” or Kubrick wasn’t as hyper focused on the details as I thought.